Critical Reasoning

The interview is an essential part of a successful hiring program because, with it, job applicants who have personalities that are unsuited to the requirements of the job will be eliminated from consideration.

The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) A hiring program will be successful if it includes interviews.

(B) The interview is a more important part of a successful hiring program than is the development of a job description.

(C) Interviewers can accurately identify applicants whose personalities are unsuited to the requirements of the job.

(D) The only purpose of an interview is to evaluate whether job applicants' personalities are suited to the requirements of the job.

(E) The fit of job applicants' personalities to the requirements of the job was once the most important factor in making hiring decisions

OA after some discussion

Thanks
Sachin

(C)

Absolutely it has to be C.

A - not mentioned.
B - nothing about a job description is mentioned.
D - it is not the "only" purpose.
E - nothing is mentioned about this.

C is the only one that the argument depends on and without it the argument cannot be valid.

Sorry for the late reply.

Answer is C.

How can i rule out (A). How to use negation technique on (A) ?

Sachin

Hey Sachin,

Great question on choice A. What's interesting about A is that it's not an assumption - it's the conclusion itself. So negating it will counter the conclusion...but only because the answer choice is just about identical with the conclusion.

To be a valid assumption answer choice, the non-negated version of it has to connect the premise and conclusion. Here we have:

Premise - job applicants with unsuitable personalities will be eliminated with an interview
Conclusion - interviews are a crucial part of the hiring process

Well that link requires interviews to be effective at eliminating those people with unsuitable personalities. If the interview doesn't allow for that determination to be made, then that link:

Interview ---> Get rid of unsuitable personalities ---> Successful hiring program

Is broken.

Another good way to look at the usefulness of the Assumption Negation technique is one I've learned from my colleague David@VeritasPrep. He calls it the "shield vs. sword" idea - most strengthen answer choices are a sword, helping to advance your argument. But assumption answer choices are shields - they're there to protect your argument. Choice C shows that our argument needs some protection - if the interviewers can't accurately figure out personalities, then the fact that "interviews are important because they help eliminate those with poor personalities" doesn't work.

So to truly be a correct assumption choice, a choice has to be directly related to that LINK between premise/conclusion...it can't just be the conclusion itself.

Thanks Brian for your reply. Got your point that interviews need to be effective at eliminating unsuitable people otherwise this link will be broken:

Interview ---> Get rid of unsuitable personalities ---> Successful hiring program

So, choice (C) is the best answer, but choice (A) looks like a strengthener. I know you have already stated it as a conclusion, but strengthener is something that makes conclusion believable.

Choice (A): A hiring program will be successful if it includes interviews.
Conclusion: The interview is an essential part of a successful hiring program.

So, according to David's "shield vs. sword" idea. This can be a sword helping to advance the argument.

I am not sure and want to clear this because I think that choice (A) can be a strengthener.
Please let me know if I am wrong or if I am missing something.

Regards
Sachin

sachin_yadav wrote:Thanks Brian for your reply. Got your point that interviews need to be effective at eliminating unsuitable people otherwise this link will be broken:

Interview ---> Get rid of unsuitable personalities ---> Successful hiring program

So, choice (C) is the best answer, but choice (A) looks like a strengthener. I know you have already stated it as a conclusion, but strengthener is something that makes conclusion believable.

Choice (A): A hiring program will be successful if it includes interviews.
Conclusion: The interview is an essential part of a successful hiring program.

So, according to David's "shield vs. sword" idea. This can be a sword helping to advance the argument.

I am not sure and want to clear this because I think that choice (A) can be a strengthener.
Please let me know if I am wrong or if I am missing something.

Regards
Sachin

I received a PM about this CR.

Answer choice A does not strengthen the conclusion that interviews are ESSENTIAL.

Answer choice A is a conditional statement: If a hiring program includes interviews, it will be successful.
If X, then Y means that X is SUFFICIENT to conclude Y.
Thus, according to A, if we know that a hiring program includes interviews, we have SUFFICIENT information to conclude that the program will be successful.
But the conclusion of the argument is more far-reaching: that interviews are ESSENTIAL.
SUFFICIENT ≠ ESSENTIAL.

To illustrate:
If John is in New York City, then he is in the United States.
John's presence in New York is SUFFICIENT to conclude that John is in the US but it is not ESSENTIAL: John does not have to be in New York City in order to be in the US.

Thus, even if we know that interviews will definitely make a hiring program successful, we cannot conclude that they are ESSENTIAL.

One other note: A conditional statement is unlikely to be the correct answer to an assumption CR. Whereas the necessary assumption is WHAT MUST BE TRUE, a conditional statement is true only if a given condition is satisfied.

Thanks Mitch. Got your point about choice (A). It is a condition and SUFFICIENT ≠ ESSENTIAL

Appreciate your reply.

Regards
Sachin

(C) obvious.